KHEEMA Vs. KHEEMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal against the concurrent finding, on the point of law, by the two subordinate Courts that the suit for redemption under sec. 43 -A of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act is maintainable in the Revenue Courts.

(2.) The counsel for the appellants only contention was that suit for redemption under section 43 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act for 20 years would no doubt lie to the Revenue Court, but in the Act No. 12 of 1961 an amendment was made in item No. 2 of schedule 3 by which Section 43 was excluded from it thereby implying that the redemption suits would not to lie to the Revenue Courts. The counsel for the respondent however repelled this argument by saying that no doubt the suit for redemption were provided for in the original Tenancy Act of 1955 but subsequently removed, but under the residuary clause of item No. 35 it was still open for the Revenue Courts to entertain such suits. In fact this was the view taken by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Nathu Vs. Chuma in 1958 R.L.W. at page 300.

(3.) We have considered the arguments advanced from both sides and perused the Tenancy Act as well as the ruling cited by the counsel for the respondent. In the above ruling Honble Modi Justice who delivered the judgment has clearly held that the Revenue Courts still have powers to entertain land redemption suits. It is clear that under section 7 of the Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act suit for redemption of a mortgage in respect of an agricultural land were maintainable by the Revenue Courts. In the original Rajasthan Tenancy Act No. 3. of 1955 which came into force on the 15th of October, 1955 there was a serial No. 2 of Schedule 1 of the Act, where provision for suits relating to mortgage was made, but in the Rajasthan Tenancy first amendment Act of 1956 by section 55 an amendment was made by which serial No. 2 was omitted and was considered to have been omitted always, but the judge in delivering the above judgment has rightly laid down that the provision of Sec. 43 and 43 -A in the Tenancy Act indicate that the Revenue Courts still retain the jurisdiction to entertain mortgage suits made before and after the commencement of the Act. This clearly indicated the intention of the legislature that such suits were exclusively triable by Revenue Courts and the Civil Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain. He further held that under serial No. 35 of Schedule 3 of the present Act, there is a general clause that any other suit in respect of any matter arising under this Act not specifically provided for elsewhere in the Schedule is maintainable in the Revenue Courts. The suit for redemption of mortgage could thus be maintained in the Revenue Courts readwith Sec. 207 sub -sec. 2 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and no other Court than the Revenue Court shall take cognizance of such cases.